Re: Help me about this question.
- From: "rhyde@xxxxxxxxxx" <rhyde@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Mar 2007 23:21:03 -0800
On Mar 1, 7:27 am, Betov <b...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
???!!!... Before being allowed to do anything like this,
clown, you need to _LEARN_ Assembly.
Yeah, right.
When done, maybe you
will understand how and why guys like me _can_ read and
understand it,
No doubt guys like you *can* read and understand it. Such is one of
the benefits to brute-force coding when the reader himself does a lot
of brute-force coding (as witnessed by reading through your
disassembler source code).
as proven, for example, by all of the FASM
users making occasionaly propositions for some FASM Source
modifications.
I didn't claim no one could read or understand the source. I claimed
that it is poorly formatted and not especially easy to read. Sure,
people (even someone like yourself) *can* figure out what's going on
by spending the appropriate time with the source code. However, the
code could be better formatting, it could have a reasonable set of
comments, and it could be modularized a bit better, and that would
make it a whole heck of a lot *easier* to read and understand by most
people.
Granted, your programming style is very similar in terms of few
comments, brute force programming style, and poor layout, so you would
probably feel right at home with this code. But just because *you*
don't know how to write readable code doesn't mean that the rest of
the world buys your argument about what constitutes well-written code.
Who did ever proposed you any Source modification, in your
packet of shit, clown?
Actually, someone else ported the package to FreeBSD several years
ago. I've actually incorporated many of those changes into HLA.
By the way, FASM is not "a tiny part of HLA". You never
wrote FASM, clown.
I didn't realize that I had to write the code in order for it to be a
part of HLA.
Then, if you admit being the "Author of Nothing",
I don't see how you came to that conclusion. I said that I was not the
author of FASM, a tiny part of the HLA system.
I guess you claim to be the "Author of Nothing" as you didn't write
the Symbolic Debugger you include with RosAsm?
what
do you mean to bark about, clown?
Whatever you say...
Aren't you the one pushing "community development" for
RosAsm? Is the symbolic debugger in RosAsm "not a part of RosAsm"
because you didn't write it?
Yes, clown. RosAsm is "community development", and such
a system of development is evidently at the other end of
the unviverse where criminals like you may live.
Hmmm...
I see a bit of a double standard here. It's okay for RosAsm to have
more than one author, it's not okay for the HLA system to have more
than one author. Right.
If you want to be "somebody", _do_ something, clown. Tips:
* Selling yourself without having ever done anything real
does not count for "doing something".
Well, for all the "real" stuff you've done, you've failed miserably at
selling yourself. As you, yourself, admit, nobody around here believes
a word you say about how assembly language ought to be used or
written.
Maybe I've not done anything "real", but you can't convince the
thousands of happy HLA users that this is the case. Argue all you want
about how well I "sell" myself and my products -- but that's part of
the game. If you can't sell your product, you may as well not have
bothered to develop it. And let me tell you, with your attitude you're
scaring people away.
* Lightening curtain's smokes does not count for "doing
something".
So you say.
But how many HLA users do you see defecting to other products once
they've learned assembly programming with HLA? If it were all "smoke
and mirrors" as you suggest, they wouldn't be "lost to assembly
forever" as you're fond of saying. Sooner or later they'd figure out
that it's a hoax and they'd be switching in droves. That just isn't
happening. So how do you explain that? "Selling myself" just isn't a
reasonable explanation; people aren't that dumb, regardless of what
you think about the programming population as a whole. The bottom line
is that the HLA user base is quite happy with the product and it's
*their* happiness that counts for "doing something." Not pleasing you
nor any other anti-HLA zealot.
* Overflowing the amaized people with pedantic bullshits
does not count for "doing something".
Sure. It's easy to say something like this when you've never been able
to produce documentation that people want to read.
BTW, did you notice that Webster turned over 8,000,000 hits on Feb
14th? Perhaps you'd like to believe that AoA is "pedantic BS" but the
bottom line is that it didn't become the most popular text on the
internet on assembly language programming by "not counting as
something." It became popular exactly because it *is* "something".
If you think you're so much better than me, how come you've never been
able to produce anything that people want to read or use?
* Claiming to be this and that does not count for "doing
something".
Nor does "claiming not to be this or that" count for "doing
something." Yet that's all you seem to do in your posts. Of course, we
already knew that the content of your posts counts for nothing. You've
already stated in past posts that you say any lie to try and spread
the FUD about HLA.
* Moving your arms over you head does not count for "doing
something".
Then why do you seem to be doing so much of this? In your post I'm
responding to, for example?
* Bombing your chest and trying to play the gorilla does not
count for "doing something".
You mean, like you're doing now?
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Help me about this question.
- From: Betov
- Re: Help me about this question.
- References:
- Re: Help me about this question.
- From: Betov
- Re: Help me about this question.
- From: rhyde@xxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Help me about this question.
- From: Betov
- Re: Help me about this question.
- Prev by Date: Re: Help me about this question.
- Next by Date: Re: great MASM feature
- Previous by thread: Re: Help me about this question.
- Next by thread: Re: Help me about this question.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
